No, I don't think so, since the goal of the advanced leaner would be to no longer need Smyth or LSJ. How often do you use such works to help with your Japanese, or, for that matter, with your English?

Native language competence is not the same thing as the ability to explain what is happening in a sentence. You can talk and write in five or ten modern languages without any metalanguage. Talking about language without metalanguage is a different issue.

No, I don't think so, since the goal of the advanced leaner would be to no longer need Smyth or LSJ. How often do you use such works to help with your Japanese, or, for that matter, with your English?

Native language competence is not the same thing as the ability to explain what is happening in a sentence. You can talk and write in five or ten modern languages without any metalanguage. Talking about language without metalanguage is difficult. This was one reason why technical language about language developed.

Junya wrote:You mean you are at a loss explaining the saying of Smyth ?Then Smyth's saying would have been unclear from the first time, and unclear not to me only.

Understanding the piculiar wording of LSJ and Grammar is still a difficult problem even for the highly advanced learners ?

I mean that I've tried to explain Smyth's treatment to the best of my ability, but that perhapsthere's some language barrier between us. Bare in my mind that English is not my native language,so I may be at fault here and am not explaining things the way I should be had I been one.

In addition, I'm not an advanced or even an intermediate learner. I have only one year in universityunder my belt; whatever progress I've made since then is largely because I am more at easebeing an autodidact than projecting myself to stress I cannot handle with mentally (financialconstraints have also been a small but relevant factor).

All I can say is that in the sentence Smyth referenced from Andocides, the context shows that it isnot fear relating to the present but to the future, and that it'd been written with the present indicativeinstead of the regular ὅπως μὴ + fut. ind. in order to present it more vividly. Most of the commentariesI've found, and the various translations, present it as such.

Hi, Markos, Mr. Bartholomew, and Nate.Excuse me replying this late, but I was sick.I have an illness and am sick every day, but these days I was very sick.

Junya wrote :

Understanding the piculiar wording of LSJ and Grammar is still a difficult problem even for the highly advanced learners ?

Markos wrote :

No, I don't think so, since the goal of the advanced leaner would be to no longer need Smyth or LSJ. How often do you use such works to help with your Japanese, or, for that matter, with your English?

Just following the others' translation, I won't have to see LSJ so eagerly.But if I want to be creative in translating, want to make a translation with some new aspects showing a deeper understanding, I have to check the dictionary very thoroughly.(The way I study is not like scholars'. My ambition is mainly turned toward translating activity.)

Junya wrote :

You mean you are at a loss explaining the saying of Smyth ?Then Smyth's saying would have been unclear from the first time, and unclear not to me only.

Understanding the piculiar wording of LSJ and Grammar is still a difficult problem even for the highly advanced learners ?

Nate wrote :

I mean that I've tried to explain Smyth's treatment to the best of my ability, but that perhapsthere's some language barrier between us. Bare in my mind that English is not my native language,so I may be at fault here and am not explaining things the way I should be had I been one.

In the end, the problem didn't solve in me, but I stop asking here lest I might be taken as a persistent psycotic person.(I tend to ask persistently, though.)

Nate wrote :

In addition, I'm not an advanced or even an intermediate learner. I have only one year in university under my belt; whatever progress I've made since then is largely because I am more at ease being an autodidact than projecting myself to stress I cannot handle with mentally (financial constraints have also been a small but relevant factor).

Yes, difficult work needs a highly sound (physical and mental) condition. Doing difficult work every day means you have to keep the sound condition every day, which is very difficult too.I tend to load myself works that are a little above me, difficult works,but I don't have a skill to keep my condition good every day.My health condition often sinks, and each time my study suffers interruption.

Nate wrote:I mean that I've tried to explain Smyth's treatment to the best of my ability, but that perhapsthere's some language barrier between us. Bare in my mind that English is not my native language,so I may be at fault here and am not explaining things the way I should be had I been one.

In the end, the problem didn't solve in me, but I stop asking here lest I might be taken as a persistent psycotic person.(I tend to ask persistently, though.)

You shouldn't feel discouraged from asking persistently until you get an answer that elucidates the matter for you. It's the way we learn. Certainly nothing psychotic about that.

Fear relating to the present or past is expressed by me^ with the indicative (negative me^ ou).

And as I said, I was unclear about the saying negative me^ ou.

So I looked for the example of that me^ ou.Among the sample sentences there was only one.It is written,

hora^te me^ ouk emoi prose^kei logon dounai

The English translation given there was confusing, but in corresponding among us the meaning of this sentence was revealed, as

beware lest the obligation of giving an account be not on me (, but on the majority of the citizens)

The me^ ou in this sentence is not the coupled me^ ou which we can find among the entries of Liddell and Scott and other dictionaries, but here ou is part of the ou A alla B (not A but B) construction and me^ and ou are completely separate.

At first it seemed like the Smyth's saying negative me^ ou meant that coupled me^ ou.But it turned out to be not so.Maybe the reason I am unsure about this saying is that I have had a prejudice that this meant the coupled me^ ou. Smyth says umbiguously too. I think the blame is in Smyth too.You explained that it meant the negative (or negation) in the subordinate clause.So simple.Now I feel I understand it.This negative me^ ou is not saying about the coupled me^ ou, but me^ and ou are separate. me^ leads the clause, and ou is simply a negation in the clause.OK ?

Yes, Junya. That's exactly the way I think this sentence should be read, but I'd love tohear others pitch in.

I would like to add that the commentaries to which I've linked in previous posts heresee this as future fear, with one deciding to correct the verb to a subjunctive to reflectsuch reading, and another criticizing the correction, noting the vividness of using pres. ind. oversubj./fut. ind.

I would like to add that the commentaries to which I've linked in previous posts heresee this as future fear, with one deciding to correct the verb to a subjunctive to reflectsuch reading, and another criticizing the correction, noting the vividness of using pres. ind. oversubj./fut. ind.

I think hora^te can be taken as be cautious toward the matter of present as well as toward the matter of future.How about this reading ?Be cautious, for the obligation of giving an account may not be on me (in the present circumstance), but on the majority of the citizens.